Ok

By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

On categories for grading work...

Today I had my research panel meeting at Manchester, which went fine and was helpful.  I also got my feedback on last year's work - which ranged from one sentence comments to short essays.  What always amuses and bemuses me though, is not the comments, or the variation in grades awarded by different markers, but the set of headings adopted by the university to 'grade' work.  These are:

  • Excellently met
  • Fully met
  • Partially Met
  • Inadequately met

At risk of mild pedantry here, surely 'fully met' is a 'met' as one can get?  Indeed, it could be argued that the category could be called 'met' with 'excellently met' replaced by 'exceeded.'

In my undergrad, days the categories used were

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

I think that these categories did the same job as the first set, but avoided adjectival nonsense.

Still, whatever set of headings they choose to use, the most important word of the whole process was 'Yes' - permission to progress to the next year's work.  Which is as well really, as the university has already relieved me of £1.6k for the privilege!

Comments

  • In the days when I was studying for the qualifications of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, their exam gradings fell in around 5 categories. One of these was a pass; the other 4 were different categories of failure... for we have all sinned and fallen short. The category I never wanted to fall in was "narrow margin of failure".

    Sounds as if your recent gradings were issued by the Met Office.

The comments are closed.